Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) had some cutting remarks for The New York Times Monday evening, accusing the paper of publishing an inaccurate, politically motivated report on Benghazi ahead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's potential bid for president.
"First of all, I want to congratulate The New York Times. It only took 15 months for them to figure out how to spell Benghazi," Gowdy said on Fox News’ "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren." "So, in another 15 months, maybe their reporting will actually catch up with the truth.”
Flying in the face of Republican leaders' long-held beliefs, the in-depth investigation found no evidence linking al Qaeda to the 2012 attack on a U.S diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The report also concluded that the attacks were sparked by an anti-Islam video produced in the U.S., contradicting the narrative put forth by members of the House Intelligence Committee portraying the incident as methodically planned.
"Whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary or a holding company or a limited partnership, to quote Hillary Clinton, 'What difference does it make?'" Gowdy rebutted on Fox News. "Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn't a spontaneous reaction to a video. It was planned."
Refuting the investigation's findings, Gowdy referenced the attacks on the Benghazi headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross that occurred prior to the video’s release.
“What in the world explains the violence in Benghazi prior to the video being translated and released?” Gowdy said. “Our consulate was attacked way before the video was released.”
Gowdy also advised the American public to listen to House Intelligence Committee members Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who reiterated their shared belief on "Fox News Sunday" that al Qaeda was involved in the attack.
“[The American people] should believe Mike Rogers, who is a former FBI agent, and Adam Schiff, who happens to be in a different party, but I respect him greatly,” Gowdy said.
He concluded that the Times’ publication of the report, which does not mention former Clinton, was designed to bolster her rumored 2016 presidential run.
"I've read this New York Times article, Dana, six times," Gowdy told host Dana Perino. "I want you to read it six times and tell me if you can tell who the secretary of state was when Benghazi happened."
“Oh, heavens no. That couldn't possibly have been their motivation, would it be, to support a Democrat who was running for the White House? Oh, heavens, no,” he added.
During an earlier Monday appearance on Fox News, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) posited similar theories, suggesting that by publishing the report, the Times was “trying to absolve [Clinton] from the lack of security that was sent over there, the number of requests for security that was turned down."
"This thing is eventually going to fall back on the State Department, when all the truth gets out there,” Westmoreland said. “Of course, Secretary Clinton was in charge at the time and there is just now a lot of rumors going and pushing about her running for president in 2016… So I think they’re already laying the groundwork.”
Responding to GOP criticism of the report, Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the paper's editorial page, called the claims "particularly hilarious" in a Monday blog post.
"Since I will have more to say about which candidate we will endorse in 2016 than any other editor at the Times, let me be clear: We have not chosen Mrs. Clinton," Rosenthal wrote. "We have not chosen anyone. I can also state definitively that there was no editorial/newsroom conspiracy of any kind, because I knew nothing about the Benghazi article until I read it in the paper on Sunday."
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.